Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/The Holocaust in Slovakia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

The Holocaust in Slovakia

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Fiamh (talk)

The Holocaust in Slovakia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/The Holocaust in Slovakia/archive1
• Featured article candidates/The Holocaust in Slovakia/archive2

The Holocaust is a contentious issue in Slovakia because the Axis-aligned Slovak State was also the first time that Slovakia had been an independent country. The Slovak State not only implemented anti-Jewish measures of its own accord but paid Germany a large sum of money in order to permanently remove 57,000 Jews. In this article, I've tried to be as comprehensive as possible with high-quality sources.

Unfortunately, I had to quit editing suddenly due to a personal crisis and therefore did not finish the previous A-class review earlier this year. I've now returned under a new account and want to finish the process. I've examined the comments left by @Indy beetle and Lingzhi2: and believe that I've addressed them. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 11:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hi. Sorry I have three major on-wiki projects (Black Monday (1987), Cold War and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bengal famine of 1943/archive4) plus several things coming up soon in real life. I will be too busy to help out here. I hope things go well for your review... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Indy beetle

• I'll look at this later. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Under Tiso's leadership, the Slovak government resumed negotiations I presume this has to do with the partition of Czechoslovakia and is thus referring to the Munich Agreement. Yet, far as I can tell, that agreement involved no negotiations on the part of the Czechoslovaks, so it is inaccurate to say the new Slovak government "resumed" them.
  • Reworded
• it was neither a fully independent state nor a puppet government, subservient to German demands. As in it was subservient to German demands or was not?
  • Reworded
• In the days after the announcement of the First Vienna Award, antisemitic rioting broke out in Bratislava; Jews were blamed for the rioting as well as the territorial losses. While I'm sure the HSL'S government was not much concerned with logic in its explanation, how exactly were the Jews blamed for anti-semetic riots? The riots seem to have been triggered by the grievances over the territory losses, and those losses were blamed on the Jews. So was it a form of indirect blaming, as in, the Jews were responsible for the riots because they were supposedly responsible for the losses which triggered them, or was there an even more in-depth conspiracy that the Jews orchestrated the riots themselves?
  • The former. I've reworded this to better summarize the source and avoid ambiguity. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 23:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• My question from the previous review regarding capital flight is unanswered. The arrests did not prevent a spike in capital flight. So the wealthier Jews managed, despite the arrests, to send their money abroad, or were poorer Jews starting to evacuate their funds out of fear?
  • Unfortunately, none of the sources go into any detail about the capital flight. I would guess that it may have come from upper-middle class Jews who were not rich enough to be imprisoned, but that's OR.
• Thousands of Jews were living illegally, often under false papers identifying them as "Aryans". Is it known if this was the result of a coordinated resistance effort to forge documents, or were papers produced on an ad hoc, independent basis?
  • I've added a note explaining the sources of forged documents.
• Slovakia has promised to return over $185 million in confiscated, nationalized property to the Jewish community. This is from a 2013 source. Any progress on this?
  • Apparently not. I've replaced that with information from a more recent and authoritative source. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 23:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Supporting. Good work. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up both maps
  • Done

• Not convinced the tagging re: images in The Tragedy of Slovak Jewry in Slovakia is correct, unless we can confirm non-US publication did not occur - see the Cornell chart
  • Well, if it was first published in Slovakia before 1949 (although Mandel does not say anything about prior publication of the images) it would still be public domain as {{PD-Anonymous-EU}}. According to Mandel, he found the photographs in 1945 (p. 4); if he knew who was the photographer he makes no mention of it. It's highly doubtful that the authors are known, or will ever be found, because they would want to avoid prosecution for being involved in criminal activities.
    • PD-Anonymous-EU for a 1949 image would have the copyright expiring after the URAA date. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
      • It's impossible to prove a negative. No one could look through all non-US publications between 1945 and 1950 to prove that this image was never published first. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 22:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
        • I have temporarily removed two of the images, because they may have been first published in this 1949 book and would be PD-Slovakia but not PD-US. According to this, the 1949 book was the first to be published with photographs from the Holocaust in Slovakia. The header image of the article is unlikely to be in the book, because there are no results for "Lipa" or "Baum", and the only result for "Stropkov" is not consistent with this image. buidhe 13:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• • • • • • • Looks like Commons' VP has concluded those wouldn't be PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your comment. If they aren't PD-US, you and I both agree that they can't be kept. But I'm not sure what evidence you think is sufficient to establish first publication. I will try to get a copy of the 1949 book (probably by late January) and will check what images are and aren't there. If not, perhaps I need to establish consensus via an FFD discussion. buidhe 23:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• File:Slovak_Republic_1939_45_Administrative_Map.png: what's the source of the data presented in this map?

• • You can find the same information on this map, published on a website belonging to the Slovak Ministry of Environment. Also, the Commons image was used in materials for a history conference.

• File:Miloslavov_tent_camp.png: don't think the current FUR presents a strong enough case for the use of a non-free image. Same with File:Kremnicka_massacre_exhumed_victims.jpg
  • Removed both

• File:Antisemitic_graffiti_in_Bratislava,_c._1941.jpg: freedom of panorama does not typically extend to 2D works like graffiti, unless specified by the legislation. If the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Also needs a US PD tag
  • Slovak freedom of panorama law (section 41-1) says nothing about 2-d vs 3-d works, only that all work "permanently located in a public place" is not subject to copyright. I'm not sure why Miniapolis changed the tag. I removed the confusing/incorrect tag and added a PD-URAA tag. It was never copyrighted in Slovakia, so it must not be copyrighted in US either.
    • Given the PD-art disclaimer, this will need a tag for Slovak status. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
      • There is no such tag, but faithful photographs of 2-d works are unlikely to be copyrighted in Slovakia because copyright on photographs requires the "author’s own intellectual creation". See Act No. 185/2015, Section 3(1)(5). Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 22:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
        • Sorry, was referring to a tag for the graffiti rather than the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
          • It's free because of freedom of panorama as a work permanently located in a public place. It was also kept at this deletion discussion. buidhe 23:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• File:Majdanek_-_Aktion_Erntefest_(1943).jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • Removed

• File:Children_in_the_Holocaust_concentration_camp_liberated_by_Red_Army.jpg: first link under Permission is dead; what leads you to believe this is PD in Russia? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It's PD-Russia because it was created by a Soviet military unit. The footage was used at the Nuremberg Trials and therefore, under Russian law, copyright would have expired 70 years later. It wouldn't meet URAA so the bigger question is whether USHMM has the right to release it into the public domain in the US. I'm not convinced of this so I removed it. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 06:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• @Nikkimaria: Has the above resolved your concerns? buidhe 13:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias

• "In a 23 March treaty.." The wording is a little awkward, maybe change to something along the lines of "In a treaty agreed on 23 March.."
  • Done
• "..was neither a fully independent state nor a German puppet.." I would consider switching where state is, and removing "a": "..was neither fully independent nor a German puppet state.."
  • Done
• "indigent" Ideally replace this with a more common, better-known word. If you feel it is the only word that will suffice, provide a Wiktionary link.
  • Used "impoverished"
• "..the no-man's land during the winter." The use of the definite article makes it seem like this has been mentioned before, but this is the only mention of a no-man's land in the article. Please clarify or soften.
  • replaced with "on the new Slovak–Hungarian border during the winter".
• In the Background section, the article uses "HSĽS", but thereafter, it uses "Ľudák". It isn't major, but it bugged me, and made me double check what they were.
  • Switched to HSLS exclusively
• "Jews were required to register their property; their bank accounts (valued at 245 million Ks in August 1941) were also frozen.." The "also" jars a bit here: it suggests that something else had been frozen. I would suggest removing it.
  • Removed
• "..revenue into Slovak coffers." The use of "coffers" here is not encyclopaedic language.
  • Replaced with "the Slovak treasury".

Reviewed to the end of the Aryanization section, more to follow. Harrias ^talk 11:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, use {{lang}} for foreign language terms, not ''.
  • Done
• Our article on Romani people suggests that "Roma" is a colloquialism, so it should be avoided in our articles as non-encyclopaedic language.
  • Done
• "During the summer of 1941..", "In the fall of 1941.." per MOS:SEASON, avoid the use of seasons as a frame of reference.
  • Removed all cases of spring, summer and fall. Left winter because in those cases the time was obvious and the season (i.e. cold) was relevant to the reference.
• "As indicated by a cable from German ambassador to Slovakia Hanns Ludin, the.." To avoid giving Ludin a false title, this needs to be reworked. Addition: There are quite a few instances of this in the article that need to be addressed.
  • This particular case was introduced by the copy editor; I restored it to what it had been previously. I also looked through the whole article and was not able to find another instance of this. Could you let me know what I'm missing?
• "..which paid 30 Reichmarks.." Should presumably be Reichsmarks as previous.
  • Good catch!
• "..were marked by "horrific scenes".." According to who? This requires in-text attribution.
  • Replaced with "scenes that horrified many non-Jewish Slovaks".
• "..accepted thousands of Ks in bribes.." Per MOS:CURRENCY, currency symbols should be only be used when accompanied by a numeric amount, otherwise spell the currency out.
  • Done
• The red-link for "selection" should move to the first use, a sentence earlier.
  • Done
• "Acting on behalf of the Vatican in April, .." April when? The last date mentioned was November 1943, so it would follow that this is April 1944, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
  • Clarified "April 1942".

Reviewed to the end of the Deportations (1942) section. Harrias ^talk 13:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll be honest and admit I forgot I hadn't finished this review:

• "Unlike German-occupied countries whose the governments.." Remove "the".
  •  Fixed
• "According to Israeli historian Gila Fatran.." Another false title.
  • Aha! I did not know what false titles were until just now. I think it may be an ENGVAR issue, because they're very common in the States. I got rid of some of them, but in some cases I think they read better than the alternative. They're accepted by Associated Press Stylebook among others so I don't think they're incorrect.
    • I think you are right that there is an ENGVAR issue here, but on the other hand, even in AmEng, I think it is journalese rather than encyclopaedic language. Nonetheless, the A-class criteria only requires that the article is "written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear", so I won't press this point. If you were considering taking this onto FA, then I am unsure if it would meet the stricter "its prose is engaging and of a professional standard" requirement. Harrias ^talk 16:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• "Einsatzgruppe", "SS-Obersturmbannführer", "Einsatzkommando", "Sonderkommando", "SS-Heimatschutz" and "Abwehrgruppe" need {{lang}} templates. Check for others.
  •  Done "SS-Obersturmbannführer" and "SS-Heimatschutz".  Not done the rest—according to Google Books, they are more commonly not italicized.
    • Wikipedia's MOS, via MOS:FOREIGNITALIC states "Wikipedia uses italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English." Is there a specific reason why these terms don't meet that criteria? My understanding would be that they should all be italicised. Harrias ^talk 16:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Right, that's reviewed to the end of the article. This is a phenomenal piece of work, and very educational: well done. Harrias ^talk 10:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• • Thanks so much for your review! I'm sure that I've forgotten about an in-progress review more than once. buidhe 11:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• Cite 292: "p." → 'pp.'. Cite 312, vice versa.

That trivia aside, a remarkably solid job on the citing and sourcing. The sources used are all solidly reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. The article itself is an impressive piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you! I fixed the p/pp errors. buidhe 22:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

Let's see or we can promote it before New Year.

• A total of 68,000 to 71,000 Slovak Jews were murdered Link for Slavak Jews?
• Slovak Jews who had come of age under Austro-Hungarian rule spoke German, Hungarian, or Yiddish Same as above and unlink German because it's a comment term.
• and supported Czechoslovakism or Hungarian expansionism.[9][6] Re-order the refs.
• states of Hungary, Poland, and Romania Unlink Hungary because it is already linked before.
• formed the Freiwillige Schutzstaffel militia.[10][3] Re-order the refs here.
• border guarantees and economic assistance.[20][6] Same as above.
• foreign interests and emphasized Catholic clericalism.[24][11][25] In note c - same as above.
• Seventy-five percent of Slovaks were Catholics In note d - unlink Catholics because of commen term.
• over 500,000 Czechoslovak koruna (Kčs) were arrested to prevent capital flight.[43][35] Same as above.
• the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom; additional Unlink both countries because of commen term.
• I see a lot of "howevers" maybe reduce them?
  • Removed some.
• Jews were also forbidden to write for Christian publications.[60][28][61] Re-order the refs here.
• cabinet (including Ferdinand Ďurčanský) with radicals.[64][65][26] Same as above.
• talks was the appointment of SS officer Dieter Wisliceny as a "Jewish adviser" British adviser.
  • According to ngrams, "adviser" is still more common in American English. It's what I've always used.
• Link dollar in note f.
  • Linked in note e, which comes first. Let me know if you think it should be linked in all the notes.
• withdraw only 1,000 Ks (later 150 Ks) per week.[56][28] Re-order the refs here.
• Jewish property and the dismissal of Jewish employees.[72][28] Same as above.
• propaganda boasted that the Jewish Code was the strictest Why has code an upper case?
  • Because it's a proper noun for a specific piece of legislation. Also, it's capitalized in the sources.
• The president, however, could issue exemptions protecting --> "The President, however, could issue exemptions protecting"
• were ordered to move to fourteen towns.[103][32] Re-order the refs here.
• German government proposed the idea.[116][95][h] Same as above.
• Solution in Slovakia "will not be very difficult".[126][127][121] Same as above.
• Lutheran is overlinked.
  • It's linked once in a footnote and once in the body. I think that's appropriate, since not all readers look at footnotes.
• On 25 March 1942, the first train departed from Poprad transit camp Remove the unnacassry "1942".
• he continued to organize transports[153][151] and said that Re-order the refs here.
• to justify the deportations relative to Christian ethics.[163][132] Same as above.
• Eighteen trains with 18,746 victims[159] went to Auschwitz, and another thirty-nine went Maybe unlink this Auschwitz to the first time it uses it, unless the Auschwitz is already mentioned then just unlink this one.
  • This is the first time it is mentioned in the text after the lede, so I think it makes sense to link here.
• Jews who had been promised immunity to labor camps.[198][166] Re-order the refs here.
• the Catholic Church issued a pastoral letter in Latin on 8 March condemning Unlink Latin.
• After the battle of Stalingrad it was evident to the Slovaks Battle of Stalingrad is a proper noun.
• known euphemistically as a "radical solution" (German: radikalen Lösung) Unlink German.
• eradicate Slovakia's remaining Jews before the Red Army advanced further into Poland Link the Red Army.
• as the population swelled to 3,000 – twice the intended capacity.[264][171] Re-order the refs.
• an office in the former Jewish Center to hunt down Jews in hiding.[281][278] Same as above.
• provide the names and addresses of other Jews in hiding.[281][278] Same as above.
• Tiso claimed in his reply to the pope that the reports of mass --> "Tiso claimed in his reply to the Pope that the reports of mass"
• were taken to Sereď and deported to Auschwitz on 17 October.[292] [293] Remove the unnacassry space.
• In all, 211 mass graves with 5,304 victims shot by Axis forces in late 1944 Link Axis.
• After the liberation of Slovakia by the Red Army in 1945, it became part of the Third Czechoslovak Republic Hmm was this really a liberation? Dictionaries say a liberation is someone or something is free from something/someone else. But Slovakia became part of Czechoslovakia again which doesn't make it liberated you know. I mean can believe most Slovaks though they're liberated from Czechoslovakia after the country got dissolved. To my eyes Czechoslovakia became liberated but Slovakia and Czechia not. Yeah, sure Slovakia was liberated from the Germans but does that mean it was really liberated because the Soviets occupied it?
  • Today's Slovak media and Slovak politicians (except Kotleba) call it liberation. Then again, so does Angela Merkel referring to Germany. I've changed this instance to "conquest" but kept "liberation" where it refers to Jews being liberated.
• the country's European identity before it joined the European Union in 2004 Unlink the EU because of common term.
• "68,000—71,000" in the infobox should change from em dash to en dash.
• In the image "File:Antisemitic_graffiti_in_Bratislava,_c._1941.jpg" the circa should have a template.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your comments! Much appreciated. I've done everything except re-ordering references and where there are comments above. Putting citations in order is AFAIK is not required by A-class or any other standard. I have some content in a sandbox that I'm planning to add before FAC, which would probably throw the numbering off anyway. buidhe 13:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Buidhe: They are not necassry but I saw many encyclopaedias use it in numerical order and they look nicer if they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CPA-5 (talk • contribs)

• @CPA-5: OK, I have reordered footnotes as requested. buidhe 13:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Happy to support this massive nom. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.